About the map

[tone]

It'd be good to get people's honest opinions about the map, not so much about textures and so on, but how it feels compared with say RS1.5/RS1.6 or any other maps you've played on.

There have been so many issues with it, and it's something we've tried working on, but despite a load of work put in by DVK, me and others, there remain a load of issues.

Do we abandon it (and obviously delay release by as much as a month) or do we struggle to make it better (and maybe even release an amended map after initial release)? The obvious contenders would be the RS1.6 map or Webbird's Warmap 8 which is more geographically correct.

[Revan The Great]

There are a few parts where the coastal area's look clunky (Gulf of Corinth for example), but other than that I don't really see anything wrong with it... Have people been complaining?

[tone]

No, not really, just something DVK and I feel.
The coastline is being worked on at the moment by apple and Paedric.

Ignore the pink, that's added material that needs to have ground_types given to it.






original:

[Bob Bobinson]

The coasts still needs some major improvement. You should just import the coasts from RS 1.6 if its causing so much trouble and make some minor adjustments here and there.

[tone]

Not quite as simple as that as the map dimensions and everything are totally different. Unfortunately the work on the map was started a long time ago - basically a blown up version of Mundus Magnus and then left unworked on for quite a long time.

I guess the main question is: gameplay (aesthetics are relatively easy to change). How does the map play? When you go in to fight battles, do the locations and everything feel convincing? Are there glaring glitches in your battlemaps and unlikely locations? Or are things overall good?

[Revan The Great]

Well firstly getting a new map would be a headache. Secondly, I kind of like how some areas, like Macedonia, look in terms of number of cities, placement of those. I'm fine with keeping our current map, honestly.

Edit: As far as the battle-map is concerned I have yet to encounter anything that didn't look good. Really I'm not sure the map is as big a deal as you seem to think it is - everything is working fine as is, and any changes that I can see needed are an aesthetic touch up here and there. No one really cares about those, and I'm sure that the people waiting with bated breath would prefer it came out a month earlier than have you guys spend time tinkering with coastlines or tree placements, or worse adapting a different map to RS2. Forget graphics, it'd be annoying to do purely from a cities and descr-editting standpoint.

[sithlord447]

Besides the coast needing a little smothing out there is nothing really that wrong with the map at all

[tone]

That's reassuring. Any voices to the contrary?

[Bob Bobinson]

Gameplay wise, the game plays fine.

Aesthetically, its the straight coastlines that bug me the most.

[tone]

Well they'll go.

[Abreas]

As long as the coastlines are delt with I think the map is great; keep it.

[swhunter]

I feel the map is fine.
Unless you want detail of every coastline.
The battle map i find is wonderful, unless you run into high steep places where you are fighting
a strange 90% degree angle, which i have posted in the past. Now that does discourage you to play the game well.
I have screen shots which i shared in the past on the Spartan thread.
Also that one location, where Perg. would besiege a city and when i would attack it.
It would crash because being close to the sea? I posted that also.
I'm coming up to that area again soon and we will see what will happen.
But if you guys are still having issues with this map, do what you think is best.

[tone]

I think we stick with it, smooth the coast and deal with any steep areas. I've come across one in Greece, that's all so far.

[Naked fanatic]

The map is good, but some places like central Gaul, Poland and so on look monotonous. There is only green. I think too dark green. Spain looks great! Im also missing some cities like Londinium or Alesia. Compared to 1.6 I think RS 2 map is flatter, but I dont have RS 1.6 installed so I can be wrong. Its just a feeling.

[tone]

I'll do a bit of texture variation to deal with that.

[apple]

Yeah Paedrica and I is working hard to fix the coasts.

[tone]

How about battlemap terrain? How are things?

1) Trees - too many / too few / about right? If there are any particular climates that need more or less let me know.

2) Bumpiness - again too much / too little / about right....let me know if there are any climates types that need addressing.

3) Grass too long / about right?

[dvk901]

I think it great...but I haven't played as much as others.

[tone]

I've been really pleased on the whole, maybe a few too many forests? I'm generally really happy with the mediterranean climate, have recently gone into a few battles to kill off the faction leader going up against the Roman rebels and have liked what I'm seeing.

There are just a few places where mountains appear too pointy and spiky. Some battlegrounds have been nothing short of amazing in terms of realistic mountains in the background - really good contrast of dark and light colours. I do need to make some of the distant colours more saturated again as there's just a bit too much contrast particularly in the grass and forest climates between the foreground and the background.

[torzsoktamas]

Sincerely,the campaign map is the last thing that bothers me.I think it looks good,..and I don't mutch care about the coastline.SO I am pleased with it.

And I am pleased with the battle maps too.